Worse is Better

It sounds like Newspeak. White Nationalists and other radicals often pepper their political discussions with the sentence “Worse is better.” But what do they mean?

The phrase is deceptively short and categorical, which tempts one to think it is offered as a universal law. But if one treats it that way, it is child’s play to “refute” it with a counter-example or two. After all, worse almost always is . . . worse.

“Worse is better” is not a universal or categorical claim. Its meaning entirely depends on context, and removing it from that context turns it into nonsense, thus doing so is a form of sophistry, a way of winning an easy victory in argument.

If a Republican says “Worse is better,” he usually means, “Worse for the Democrats is better for the Republicans.” If a Democrat says it, he usually means, “Worse for the Republicans is better for the Democracts.” A hallmark of primitive thinking—to which “modern” people feel so superior, by virtue of their birth (the most democratic form of snobbery!)—is that the king is responsible for the crops. If the crops are blighted, the king must die. The same thinking reigns today. The president is responsible for the economy. If the economy is bad, the president must be replaced—with a president of the opposite party.

Within a two party system, “Worse is better” functions to create a blank check on power for whatever party holds it. If a party were installed in power based on its platform and promises, they might actually feel pressured to act on them. But if a party is elected simply because they are not the other party, then they enjoy power not on their own merits, but on the demerits of their opponents, which means they can pretty much do anything as long as they seem sufficiently unlike the other party.

And of course, we White Nationalists know that none of the system parties are really that different. They are just heads of the same hydra, sockpuppets of the same octopus, masks of the same alien oligarchy. (And I don’t mean Kang and Kodos.) So the two party system feeds on its own failures, rotating the front men while continually accumulating power.

When a White Nationalist takes a step back from the system and says “Worse is better,” what does he mean? He usually means one of three things.

(1) “The worse for the system as a whole, the better for white people in the long run.” Why? Because White Nationalists believe that we will never have a White Republic by working within the current system. But since we do not have the power to destroy the system outright, we need it to destroy itself. Thus, whatever drives the system toward a breakdown—economic depression, corruption, apathy, cynicism, mass chimp outs, fiat currency, etc.—is better for the long term interests of whites than maintaining the present system.

(2) “The worse white dispossession is today, the better for white people in the long run.” Why? Because whites are being done to death slowly—with demographic trends that unfold over decades—so that most of us will not even notice what is happening until it is too late. How does one boil a frog without him jumping out of the pot? Increase the heat slowly, so that when he realizes he is being boiled, it is too late. Thus, “worse is better” in this context means: The acceleration of white dispossession will raise white racial consciousness.

This, of course, is risky. If the process accelerates too quickly—to The Camp of the Saints levels—we might be swamped anyway, even if we do regain our racial consciousness. My great fear is that the system will collapse too soon, and White Nationalists will not be in a position to have a say about what comes next. But even this is less risky than allowing our dispossession to unfold slowly.

The most advantageous form of white dispossession to accelerate is on the symbolic plane, which shapes consciousness while leaving us materially able to fight when we are so inclined. As I have argued elsewhere, the election of Barack Obama was symbolically very good for white racial consciousness, because now our president no longer looks like us. Obama’s election has also made Blacks far more uppity, greedy, and reckless. This summer’s flash mobs are a reflection of this, and they are highly educational on the symbolic plane without incurring debilitating real world costs.

(3) “The worse the American economy today, the better for white people in the long run.” Americans are narcotized with prosperity and individualism. These drugs allow us to make our separate peaces with the system that is destroying us. In spite of a lot of patriotic bluster about fighting for freedom, Americans don’t fight for our freedom. We run away for our freedom. We move one more exit down the interstate to another subdivision for our freedom.

As long as Americans have the money, we will insulate ourselves and our loved ones from social decay and racial dispossession—letting the dark masses cull the weaker and poorer among us. But the predators will work their way up the economic ladder eventually, and when they come for the upper middle class, there won’t be enough white people left to band together to resist them.

Economic hardship also increases racial conflict and thus increases racial consciousness. Thus the worse the economy gets for white Americans today, the faster we will gain racial consciousness and the sooner we will stand up for ourselves. This is why I believe that Ron Paul-like figures, who promise to put the economy on firmer footing while maintaining race replacement, are far greater enemies of whites than Barack Obama, who looks like he might destroy the dollar in only one term.

* * *

Many people find the “worse is better” notion morally objectionable because it is all mean and vanguardy. And in truth cyberspace is full of creeps who revel in visions of hated liberals and “SWPLs” being murdered by black mobs so they can cackle and say “I told you so.” Their Schadenfreude and wounded vanity are palpable. Our movement is plagued with people who are kooks and haters first. They come to White Nationalism because they believe the enemy propaganda about us and think they have found a home.

But true White Nationalists do not rejoice in the idea that “worse is better.” We wish that it were not so. We wish we lived in a world in which worse is always worse. We wish that our people had heeded the warnings about the follies of racial egalitarianism and non-white immigration from farsighted whites of generations past like Lothrop Stoddard. But, sadly, few ever heard the warnings, and most of those ignored them.

The ultimate premise of “worse is better” is the old “pathema, mathema” (suffer and learn) principle: Most people do not learn from intellectual warnings, which are abstract and universal, but through experience, which is concrete and individual. Good parents of course want to spare their children unnecessary suffering. So they warn them about hazards. But still, many children learn only through painful experiences.

White Nationalists, like good parents, have tried to spare our people from the tribulations to come. But our race is a sleepwalker approaching a precipice. Now we have only a choice of horrors: catastrophe’s rude awakening or extinction’s eternal sleep.

21 Comments

Look at the current situation with South African whites. I don’t see any evidence of them trying to take back their country. They seem to accept their fate, due to the individualistic nature of white people in general.

Look at the current situation with South African whites. I don’t see any evidence of them trying to take back their country. They seem to accept their fate, due to the individualistic nature of white people in general.

They have been blocked from immigration to European countries – specifically, America, even under the laws of “asylum.” They have also been indoctrinated into the sense of learned helplessness all too many of us have, demoralized by being placed in double-bind situations, where any answer we develop is the “wrong” answer. Think of “1984,” when Winston Smith realized the correct answer to “What does 2 + 2 equal?”

The example of how White Families were treated in Rhodesia should have been a spur to dramatic action. The best response I have seen so far is the three thousand who are actively – very actively, as Mandela’s time grows short – planning to move to Georgia, in a New Boertrek. Climbing into the fronts of the big Antonov’s, they will start new lives in a region that is having deep infrastructure upgrades, which should be of great aid in developing commerical farms in the richest soil in the world.

Three thousand – that’s how people are planning to form a new Nation within a nation, and this, when the alternative is certain genocide following Mandela’s death.

There are days when the vertical component of Race is obvious in its absence. An entire nation of Charlie Browns, in the face of certain death. What does the Red Pill have to look like for them?

Some very good analysis here related to this topic in general — worse is better.

It was written by Justin Raimondo from a libertarian perspective, and he relies on Murray Rothbard’s concepts. Yes, I know, Rothbard was a Jew who peddled extreme atomistic individualism and libertarianism, and Raimondo is an aggressive anti-racist who does the same. This particular analysis is still good, however, despite those things.

Respectfully, Raimondo makes the same primary error so many ideologues do.

Justin Raimondo in blockquote:

Yet the American people don’t want to be sacrificed, either to corporate gods or some desiccated idol of internationalism, and they are getting increasingly angry—and increasing savvy when it comes to identifying the source of their troubles.

In reply:
No, Charlie Brown (“left”) and Charlie Brown (“right) are both played for fools by the One Party, which “suggests” they side with organizations that are united in their support for the genocide of the White race – legalizing the illegals, adopting dysgenic social policies, legalizing discrimination against White Men economically (Affirmative Action) and politically (sexual harassment tribunals).

Remember, the People voted in polls, and calls to Capitol Hill, against the bailouts for billionaires by better than ninety-nine to one. That one is the only one that mattered, and the bailouts passed, unanimously in the Senate.

The One Party. They NEVER lose. They control all sides of the discussion, and all sides of all possible outcomes. They control the funding for it, and the administrative forces to make their wish, our command.

This brings us to the prospects for a left-right alliance, both short term and in the long run. In the immediate future, the US budget crisis could be considerably alleviated if we would simply end the wars started by George W. Bush and vigorously pursued by his successor. Aside from that, how many troops do we still have in Europe – more than half a century after World War II? How many in Korea—long after the Korean war? Getting rid of all this would no doubt provide enough savings to ensure that those Social Security checks go out—but that’s a bargain Obama will never make.

Funny how no one who can affect the outcome runs for office on a platform of cutting defense in a meaningful way. The Strauss Defense Reform Project has shown where DoD can have its budget cut dramatically, and not one of their excellent suggestions makes the cut. There’s a reason for that, and it’s a very simple reason.

With this much money, well, in politics, money does not just talk, it speaks with authority. As well, the focus of this defense spending is the literal fulfillment of the Project for a New American Century, and a Project for the Defense of the Realm. Each country that might affect Israel is being carved into regions, with America’s monopoly on air power insuring regional borders are effective so far as the disposition of military forces is concerned.

Indeed, if you look at the disposition of US (“NATO”) forces in the region, you see we have been allowed to encircle all countries that border on Israel. Last I heard, Israel had observer status within NATO, and full intelligence access to all things NATO.

See a pattern? Raimondo’s analysis seems very quiet on the JQ, doesn’t it? Wonder why the libertarians discuss all issues but one issue, do you? Remember, Alicia Rosenbaum – Ayn Rand – developed libertarianism as the Jewish counterpoint to the Jewish philosophy of “Judeo-Bolshevism” (HT: Winston Churchill) Communism. Both leave the Inner Party in control, one by definition, and the other, lack of definition to the contrary. Libertarians are Children, and believe politics will ignore vacuums, if we just talk to them nicely, and explain to them why they should, really, really SHOULD, stop beating us up. Wolves and sheep CAN coexist!

Above all, in all human affairs, the slightest bit of organization defeats anarchy. Ten for ten. Organizing along Racial lines, and thinking Racially first, foremost, forever, certainly seems to work for the Jews. It would work equally well for us.

It’s amazing how the system easily neutralizes threats from both the mainstream “left” and “right.” This debt ceiling kabuki is now reaching a crescendo, and the Tea Party populist conservatives are about to kick Lucy’s football again. It’s a great metaphor for the usual pattern: the WSJ, the US Chamber of Commerce, The Weekly Standard, and the insider GOP leaders are setting up the ball for the populist base, and the base is going to kick. It does not appear they plan to quit acting as cannon fodder for the economic interests of Jews, Wall Street and globalist plutocrats any time soon.

Whether or not “worse is better” is a viable strategy is moot. What will be will be, regardless of the input of true white aryan racists. As correctly mentioned previously, war folks do not have the power, particularly not those who fail to defend their positions through disciplined lone wolf and ghost wolf deception.

What IS happening will become increasingly obvious as each enemy operation reveals its method — even when repetition many times over is necessary to tear down the layers of obfuscation. The returns are coming in rapidly.

I’ll be sure to tell Bob Mathews and David Eden Lane about your ideas when I see them.

Don’t forget a great insight from Terrible Tommy Metzger:

When a man asks you to do something illegal, ask yourself why he needs you to do it. You’re being set up. Walk away from him, and keep walking. If he follows you, call the police.

The greater tragedy is Lane and Mathews could have done so very much more for the Race if they had ignored those who proposed the use of force against the greatest concentration of military and intelligence power in the history of the world.

For instance, Lane could have developed his ethnoeconomic systems into the economic foundation of Mathews ethnocommunities; in time, the foundation of true, and truly effective, ethnostates, the foundation of a Northwest Republic.

Maybe someone who encouraged them realized this, feared the competition, and set them on a Path that guaranteed their efforts would come to sorrow, for themselves, and those who care for, and about, them.

Incidentally, suppose they had looked at whoever gave them the Idea of using force against the greatest military and intelligence power in the history of the world, and said:

“We don’t know what you are talking about! Get away from us, or we are going to the police!”

I suspect Lane would be running a new version of something like the National Grange, and Mathews would be the Senior Senator from Idaho.

That’s if they did things with a metapolitical focus for the Race, a strategic purpose tied into the Northwest Republic, and, of course, all things were done “in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim “Strictly Legal” Giles)

I’ll be sure to tell Bob Mathews and David Eden Lane about your ideas when I see them.

I’m not advocating their methods or suggesting anyone consider their methods, and I have always wondered why they chose the path they did. Still, it seems to me that whatever their shortcomings and clear errors in judgment, Mathews and Lane were both “men our ancestors would have recognized.”*

*This is Harold Covington’s phrasing. He used it in one of his books in reference to one of his fictional characters.

I didn’t say you were advocating the ill-considered practices of David Eden Lane and Robert Mathews, don’t worry!

I think they chose the path they chose because their understanding of the effective use of political power was limited. The inappropriate use of force means your Enemy has defined you to HIS satisfaction, and had placed you in the box where you accept HIS definitions of the situation, and HIS terms. In short, you chose to gain the facade of power for one minute, and lose all power soon thereafter. If the Enemy can convince you to attack HIS target, on HIS terms, so much the better. He gains a propaganda victory of the first magnitude, and he usually has the target insured, so he faces no real losses.

In short, David Eden Lane and Robert Mathews trusted SOMEONE a great, great deal. SOMEONE certainly gained from their repeated activities, and it wasn’t either Lane or Mathews.

In fact, they were acting out the script handed to them called “Bank Robbing Revolutionary.” Of course, they were pretty much allowed to succeed, for a season, and then they weren’t allowed to succeed. They were then made Examples of, for all who might consider their examples to be worthy of emulation.

They were sold a bill of goods. The moment they took up arms against the most powerful military and intelligence network in the history of the world, it was just a matter of time before they were caught, and neutralized.

Ironically, their mere banditry, masked with the rhetoric of Revolutionists, was a mere candle compared to the laser power of the Idea they actually was revolutionary, and was more effective than they were led to believe. Mathews’ ethnocommunities, and Lane’s ethnoeconomic models, could have laid the foundation for a new nation, based on the Ideals found in the Constitution of the Northwest Republic.

But trusting Someone, and taking the ideas offered to them by Someone, was their big mistake, their fatal mistake. We must not make such mistakes ourselves, and the best way to do that is by doing all things in a metapolitical framework, and acting at all times in an “apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way” (HT: Jim “Strictly Legal” Giles)

While “worse is better,” the Adult response is to take the Collapse as the starting point for the Transformation, the Next Renaissance. I’ve talked with too many people who believe their thirty days of rations and hundred rounds of ammo will let them “pull through,” and become the de facto survivor of the Hell before them.

The problem with such people is you ask them the Adult Question, the foundation of political philosophy – “And THEN What?” They get quiet, for they have been so indoctrinated by The System they don’t realize this is what the Owners want – them, alone, isolated, with no greater philosophy than some libertarian fantasy that will magically reCreate the best of 1950’s America. They literally get a blank look on their face when you ask them, “And THEN What?” In short, the Owners and the Controllers win by default. Assuming all that holds society together fails, the Collapse Function will continue until regional warlords organize, and form new tyrannies, the hallmark of the Dark Ages.

If you ask the “And THEN What?” question over and over, you soon come to the only conclusion that works – an ethnostate, based on the premise that the FIRST purpose of the State is to protect the Race. Divided Lone Wolves are easily conquered, and are usually best ignored. United Families form the living foundation of a New Nation.

I keep asking the posters here, and elsewhere, to do a one paragraph – Hell, one sentence – diary of the life outside their bedroom windows in 2050. None dare – one gave it a token, half-hearted response, but that was more than the rest did – because they are simply terrified to think “What IF?” on the personal scale, “What world am I creating for my grandchildren? What world am I leaving them by default if I don’t?”

“Worse IS Better,” up to a point. That point is where “Better is Better.” The analytical framework that helps to reach that point is the Northwest Republic.

I’m sending money to counter-currents tomorrow. Look at your VISA bill this month, and ask yourself what your values REALLY are. It’s what you do when no one is looking that is the proof of character, and the test of who you are, and who you are Choosing to become.

Counter-currents is pretty much unique, except for Bob Whitaker, and Harold Covington, in that the primary Cultural goal of the Enemy for us is to accept their definition of who we are, what our situation is, and what we can DO about it. This process of demoralization suits them just fine, and only a metapolitical focus overcomes it, by offering us our own definitions, on our own terms.

Everything else in self-identified White Nationalism might as well worship at the Church of Charlie Brown. Bad news, Charlie Brown. You have been rational with the irrational, and they are coming to walk you down a dark alley, and slit your throat. Want a beter choice, you fat, simple Loser?

When framed in these terms, the claim that worse is better is probably true; however, Alex K raises an important issue that many proponents of the “worse is better” theory often ignore. When and if things do get so bad that radical change becomes feasible, the people in the best position to exploit the situation will be those who already hold power during the decisive time frame. And that won’t be us. The people who have power now are not going to voluntarily let it go no matter what does or does not happen; it’s the reason revolution is necessary in the first place. The powerful are not so blind that they can’t see the same trends we see as a potentially serious threat to the staus quo. I’m sure they have a plan and are well prepared for any disruptions.

When and if things do get so bad that radical change becomes feasible, the people in the best position to exploit the situation will be those who already hold power during the decisive time frame. And that won’t be us.

Not here, if we don’t allow it. In areas that have been constructively abandoned by the Owners, that’s another story. The key for us to “hold power” is to not see power as something that is static, that can be held. Rather, we have to focus on the foundation and source of power, which is effectiveness. This means being better people, organized in common around a better, metapolitical purpose. The words Northwest Republic keep coming to mind. As for “effectiveness,” wouldn’t an excellent place to begin outside your Self ne to contribute to counter-currents regularly?

The people who have power now are not going to voluntarily let it go no matter what does or does not happen; it’s the reason revolution is necessary in the first place. The powerful are not so blind that they can’t see the same trends we see as a potentially serious threat to the status quo. I’m sure they have a plan and are well prepared for any disruptions.

Most “revolutions” are not really revolutions; they are coups d’etat. Different figureheads end up running pretty much the same System, with a lot of public relations tweaking, and a few hollow reforms to keep the Democracy happy. The same banking system, usually with the same banks, remains unchanged, as do most economic structures.

“Lucy’s Rules” Football for Charlie Brown, as he thinks different flags mean different, spelled “Better.” The Owners do not care for Good Ol’ Charlie Brown, and all too soon, he will be wearing a Useless Eater t-shirt. The wisdom of Master Sergeant Thomas James Ball’s Second Set of Books Principle will soon be demonstrated, but Charlie will go off to the Reeducation Center screaming loudly of his “inalienable, God-granted Constitutional rights.” The best teacher and leader Good Ol’ Charlie Brown will be is by example.

I think THEY have a Plan – several, called “Contingency Planning” – and are well prepared for everything but what will actually happen. They had plans for the flooding of New Orleans, and Katrina pretty much put paid to them.

The centerpiece of all such Plans is to assume the Commanding Points of the political and economic system. At THAT point, all of the Ayn Rand stuff does kick in – growers stop growing because they do not get their costs of production covered, and so forth, and the pyramid grows smaller, and sharper.

Covington had the best Analytical Framework. Assume that gasoline goes to ten dollars a gallon. Any protest marches quickly go to zero, as people can not afford to do much of anything. Protesters are quickly identified. Then what? We saw how the FBI took down a good bit of the “Anonymous” entity. It seems “Anonymous” decided to pull off a cyberattack on the intelligence community – the guys who wrote the software they, and we, are using. Proxies? Please. “Hardened” operating systems? Please. The FBI decided Daddy’s had enough, and took them down in a matter of HOURS.

The ONLY answer has three components – a metapolitical component, as discussed and defined by counter-currents, a strategic political component, the Northwest Republic, and tactical social and political components – “Hugh,” on VNN/F’s “A World View” thread, and the eternally true reminder of Jim Giles that we can achieve all we want, and all we dream of, “in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim “Strictly Legal” Giles).

A common foundation would be to contribute to counter-currents; the smallest amount, given regularly, acts as a constant reminder that their efforts are not taken for granted. In the case of contributions for counter-currents, “Worse IS NOT Better. More Is Better, and Much More Is Much Better.”

FC, You have quoted Jim Giles many times. I like Giles, especially his interviews of Alex Linder and James Bowery, but cannot fathom how Giles’ strictly legal way is reconcilable with actual revolution (as far as I understand Giles neither Covington nor I would be “apple pie” but perhaps spooky kind of guys). And btw, through my 2050 bedroom’s window the future residents will watch pretty hellish conditions. When my mother was a little child my grandma asked the bus driver to keep an eye on her en route to my grand-grandma’s place. Today it would be absolutely unthinkable to ask such a favor from any bus driver.

I think that both Greg and Trainspotter got it right. Presently the imperative is the awful process of spreading these ideas (apple pie guys might enjoy the process but for spookies it’s like awaiting in the trenches destroying their livers with no real action). But I concede that without the mental revolution first only “extinction’s eternal sleep” will come.

The thread at VNN you mention is huge, with more that 60 pages. Could you put it in a nutshell? (off topic, in YouTube today I listened for the first time references to VNN and Stormfront,as Ezra Levant did in mainstream TV).

Yup: focus Northwest, but let’s spread the ideas first, and we will badly need the WN equivalent to Levant for a more effective spreading.

True revolutions begin with an Idea, one Idea that simply defines many choices, a wide range of options, and having choices is the hallmark of effectiveness. Tragically, consider David Eden Lane and Robert Mathews, both Alpha Males with tremendous potential, who chose the one form of action the entire government is set up to crush, totally, ruthlessly, fast, clean and hard. Suppose Mathews had continued with his Northwest ethnocommunities, and linked up with Lane’s ethnocentric business alliances, developing outward into cooperatives instead of corporations, credit unions instead of bank, and, in time, much more – central tracking systems for Time Dollars, for example. The Jews took over America without firing a shot, by controlling the words you hear, the pictures you see, and the financial system you use. With all of this on their side, politicians are easily coopted to serve them. Not one shot being fired.

“Strictly legal” lays the foundation for revolutionary thinking; new Forms of association to meet the needs of the new Cultural Moment. For example, Christian home schooling can be delivered on the new AMAZON Kindle, with no needs for books, or the entire educational bureaucracy as you know it. Look at how much of your local and state taxes go to education. Imagine giving your children a much better education, and cutting your taxes dramatically. Hitting the old efficiency/effectiveness curves, the resources freed up make the new nation a model for the Race. And we are just getting started.

Revolutions take many Forms; coups d’etat take one, with local variations. Figureheads change, but nothing of substance changes one iota. Anyone who teaches ineffective rebellion is tempted to practice ineffective rebellion, when they are quickly tutored by those who effectively practice war; “eternal sleep,” indeed.

Your critical point is most important – we have been so demoralized that we can not accept the need for effective, peaceful revolution. If Ghandi had taken arms, he would have lost all moral legitimacy, and been crushed instantly. Instead, he had a better Idea, and demonstrated it, easily, quietly, and effectively, without firing a shot.

Giles understands, at great expense to himself, that people want pretty much what they have now, just a little better – the basis of the Social Contract of the Twentieth Century, post WW II. As that collapses, people are very open to creative alternatives. They slowly awaken from their color television, drug-enhanced stupor, and look for Solutions. I think when Giles means “spooky,” he means ineffective, in that they believe some massive exogenous event is required before anything happens. It puts faith that “invisible forces” will suddenly make many people agree with us, and rush to the banner. It denies effectiveness for us, as we have to create the Analytical Framework for them to move forward, which they will do only when they are ready. It’s mysticism without the effectiveness of religion. Spooky.

And, we can spend our time as free men to prepare ourselves for the moment we can use whatever resources we have, all, of course, “in an apple-pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim “Strictly Legal” Giles) If this happens to be doing kettlebells, and studying aikido, for physical strength and flexibility, that’s perfect. That takes us to “Hugh.”

The thread at VNN you mention is huge, with more that 60 pages. Could you put it in a nutshell?

“Hugh” makes the critical point that people who advocate the illegal use of force, as the first choice, tend to be failures in that they are not making the many daily choices that would allow them to develop the Talents they were given, transforming them into useful Capacities. Most of these people are “revolutionaries” up to a point; that point is what I call the “dog meet car moment.” Assume they “took control of the government by the extralegal use of force tomorrow. Like the dog that caught the car, what would they DO with it?

A Gramscian approach worked then, and it will work now. “Hugh” proposes we get very good at being better members of the society. All we need to do we can do without wearing green satin bedsheets and pillowcases on our heads. Hart, Schaffner, and Marx three-piece suits work for a Chicago street organizer; at least, now that he’s in the White House.

I have some more Ideas about the issues you raised, and the critically important thread by “Hugh.” I will return to them here.

COMPREHENSION: “Worse is better,” but we must BE better, to fix things when things are at their worst.

The great power of VNN/F’s “Hugh” is that he focuses on the importance of basic competence as the foundation of true political effectiveness. In this, we can learn from Oliver’s observations on the foundations of Jewish effectiveness: (1) they are ALWAYS in a Race War, albeit as soft, cultural type of Race War, and (2) they have a metapolitical focus for all they do. This forces them into excellence in the areas they operate in. Look at lists of the best professionals – lawyers, doctors, surgeons, architect, investment bankers, teachers, professors – and it’s not JUST because of Jewish networking (although that is an important factor).

It’s because their Race focuses on developing the informal structures that support individual excellent. The old saw of the Jewish boy who practiced, practiced, practiced, showed he was disciplined enough to enhance that deep foundation by working with the Elders of the Tribe in what would become his chosen (*ahem*) field on endeavor.

So, take “Hugh” at his word. How could we develop the skills needed to lead? First, we must be the best in our chosen field of endeavor. If we were to become involved in, say, municipal finance, we should write blogs demonstrating how we see and solve problems of municipal finance. Education? Go to all of the schools, obtain all of the licenses, and become deeply involved in the professional organizations. Finally, dress and act like Leaders. Attend political meetings, and attend the schools both political parties offer on organizing and campaign techniques. You need not BE the Leader at these affairs, but they are very useful to understand how the System REALLY works.

Again, all perfectly practical, and all done in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)

Finally, I’ve been thinking more about the use of religion in the foundation of the New Civilization, and I have some ideas that might be useful to us in the future. I’m still working on them, but I think we can dispense with the contemporary practice of Judeo-Christianity very easily, replacing it with a new Christianity that would be quite acceptable to Martel, and Joan.

Don’t give the people in power too much credit. I am sure that the Court Jews have condoms full of diamonds, multiple passports, and villas in South America in place just in case. But the vast majority of the people in charge really believe their own bullshit. They really think they are leading us to the sunlit uplands of progressive utopia rather than off a cliff. And they are taking us there, pedal to the metal, with no brakes. And when they go into the abyss, they will be totally surprised and totally unprepared.

People in power do abdicate all the time. Louis XVI gave his power away. During the First World War, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, the Kaiser, and the Tsar all abdicated. When communism in Europe collapsed in 1989–1990, most of the regimes simply abdicated. Yes, in all cases there was pressure, and if they did not abdicate, they would have had to fight. But they still abdicated. Sometimes rulers lose the will to use power, and power then moves into the hands to those who are willing to use it.

Revolutions, moreover, do happen. When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, they were not insiders. They were a minority even among the revolutionary left. But they were a well-organized and ruthless minority, and when objective circumstances were right, they were able to seize power.

My great fear is the the system will collapse too soon, and White Nationalists will not be sufficiently organized to have a say in what comes next. In that case, worse would be worse.

One more point: If one system man merely replaces another, we have not by definition reached the point of system breakdown. We are merely observing the routine rotation of front men.

I agree. That is the difference between a coup d’etat and a revolution. Most of what we call “revolutions” are really highly focused coups d’etat masking themselves as rebellion. After the theater, the same Institutions are up and running; different names, perhaps, different front men, certainly, but the different front men do what the old front me did.

The only thing that will wake up the White Lemmings is for the Jew Capitalist system to totally deconstruct. As long as the majority of Whites are allowed their “Bread and Circuses” from the system, they will never become racially aware. If White men don’t come to their senses pretty soon, the Jews will miscegenate our Race out of existance in a few more generations. If we are dumb enough to allow the Jews to destroy us, we deserve out fate.

This article is sort of Déjà – vu for me. As a Nationalist in Liverpool back in the 1980’s, worse was something we all prayed for. We prayed for more immigrants, more riots and more crime. Like we had a crystal ball, this indeed came true. However, we need the collapse soon. Infact, we need it now! We need it before our people are so dumbed down and worthless, their incapable of doing anything at all.

“We DO NOT wish for ‘Law and Order,’ for law and order means the continued existence of this rotten rip-off Capitalist Jew System. We wish for anarchy and chaos which will enable us to ATTACK the system while her Big Brother Pigs trying to keep the pieces from falling apart. We wish for a situation so confused and mixed-up that we can go after those bastards responsible for the anti-White policies and attacks against our people which now exist. Such chaos would allow us to so intensify our assaults that we could very well plunge the entire system to its death. For us to support those (the police) who maintain the ‘rules the wise men make for the fools’ is absurd and suicidal.”

Joe Tommasi

One Trackback

[…] Greg Johnson and Alex Kurtagic have been discussing a familiar witticism: worse is better. Axiomatically, reducing a concept down to three simple words necessarily strips it of nuance. Worse isn’t always better, but is it necessarily always worse? As Alex points out, we have to be capable of providing an alternative to the system for that system’s failure to be in our interest. Greg accurately notes that the system’s failures are opportunities for awakening… […]